Messages in this thread | | | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Re: futex and timeouts | Date | 14 Mar 2002 22:56:09 -0800 |
| |
Followup to: <20020315060829.L4836@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk> By author: Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org> In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2002 at 04:39:50PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > > Yep, sorry, my mistake. I suggest make it a relative "struct timespec > > *" (more futureproof that timeval). It would make sense to split the > > interface into futex_down and futex_up syuscalls, since futex_up > > doesn't need a timeout arg, but I haven't for the moment. > > Why waste a syscall? The user is going to be using a library > wrapper. They don't have to know that futex_up() calls sys_futex(futex, > FUTEX_UP, NULL); >
Syscalls are (by and large) cheap. Extra dispatches, however, hurt.
-hpa -- <hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private! "Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot." http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt <amsp@zytor.com> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |